The official South Carolina record temperature was set at Columbia during 2012. The data from that thermometer is not even remotely credible.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “even within the lifetime of our children”
- 60 Years Of Progress in London
- The Anti-Greta
- “a persistent concern”
- Deadliest US Tornado Days
- The Other Side Of The Pond
- “HEMI V8 Roars Back”
- Big Pharma Sales Tool
- Your Tax Dollars At Work
- 622 billion tons of new ice
- Fossil Fuels To Turn The UK Tropical
- 100% Tariffs On Chinese EV’s
- Fossil Fuels Cause Fungus
- Prophets Of Doom
- The Green New Deal Lives On
- Mission Accomplished!
- 45 Years Ago Today
- Solution To Denver Homelessness
- Crime In Colorado
- Everything Looks Like A Nail
- The End Of NetZero
- UK Officially Sucks
- Crime In Washington DC
- Apparently People Like Warm Weather
- 100% Wind By 2030
Recent Comments
- conrad ziefle on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- arn on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- Luigi on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- arn on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- arn on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- Bob G on The Anti-Greta
- conrad ziefle on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- Francis Barnett on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- Jimmy Haigh on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- arn on 60 Years Of Progress in London
I began to learn about manipulating data back in my high school chemistry class, when I knew enough about theory that I could tell that my lab results ranged from randomly bad to absolutely atrocious. A good fudger also knows that you cannot show up with absolutely theoretically correct data while using imperfect devices, so you fudge in random error that gives you approximately correct (in theory) results. This is in an laboratory environment where all of the other factors are controlled. Apparently, the people at NOAA aren’t that good counterfeiters, because they get the exact correlation between the CO2 and the temperature, even in the natural world where the only things they control are the placement of the thermometers, the selection of which thermometer stations to use and which to close, the blending of data from which location to which location, the correction of systemic error in a nonuniform way, and even then they have to make unfounded adjustments, even to their modern, state-of-the-art thermometers, to get the results which they want. But nobody finds that a bit fishy.
quite possible that South Carolina thermometer did reach 113 and this is how they did it. when it looks like it’s going to max out at 107 let’s just take the thermometer out of the official box which is 5 or 6 ft above the grass and hold it one foot over the black top and see what happens. bingo 113. it happened in Minnesota when we set an all-time low temperature record of 60 below. to be precise it was 59 and a half below and rounded to 60. when it looked like the thermometer wasn’t going to go any lower they took it out of the box and went down to the bottom of a small hill and held the thermometer a foot over the snow and it quickly reached 70 below. but in that case it was all done for curiosity and fun and the low of 70 below was never considered official
According to unconfirmed sources (50 high ranked former intelligence guys),
Michael Mann was seen that day in Columbia with with matches and a lighter 🙂
And maybe, we reached the level of the car industry,
where manipulating data has been fully integrated into the hardware.
good one arn. lol